178 replies to this topic

[mrmando]

Attica, on 16 July 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

I just love that a theatrically released film from Disney was done old school. Not only is it hand drawn but it's also drawn on paper and not on drawing tablets. Tablets
are a lot faster and the drawings are easier to work with in production. Their decision to draw on paper shows respect for the artform of the older animated movies.

Eh? The clip shows animators doing some paper tests, but the final image would be drawn on a cel.

Used to have a couple of Jungle Book cels. Sold them on eBay a while back.

[Peter T Chattaway]

mrmando wrote:
: Eh? The clip shows animators doing some paper tests, but the final image would be drawn on a cel.

Not necessarily.

In the '60s, Disney began photocopying pencil sketches onto cels, rather than drawing them; this process, which resulted in a sketchier look, was initially developed to simplify the multiplication of dogs in One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961), IIRC, but you can see it in pretty much all the other films Disney produced that decade, as well -- including the original Winnie the Pooh shorts.

And then, by the '90s, Disney abandoned cels altogether and began painting the elements and putting them together in a computer. (The first film to use this process was 1989's The Little Mermaid, but only for one or two scenes; 1990's The Rescuers Down Under was the first-ever all-digital feature.)

I haven't watched the clip in question yet, so I can't say exactly what technique they used this time around, but, when I saw the new film, I did notice that the animation was a little "sketchier" this time, which would be consistent with the photocopied-cel technique. Whether that look was achieved the old-fashioned way or simulated in some way, though, I could not say. (If Winnie the Pooh truly used cels instead of computers to put the various elements together, then that WOULD be interesting.)

[Attica]

mrmando wrote:
: Eh? The clip shows animators doing some paper tests, but the final image would be drawn on a cel.





I was referring more to the actual process of animating than to the ink and paint stage of the film. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

As for Ink and Paint I'm pretty sure that I've seen clips of the film being inked and painted using a Cintiq drawing tablet.

Nowadays I think it's fairly rare for a studio to do all of it's actual animating using paper.


FWIW I'm an animator and I've animated using paper and then inking and painting on cells, then moved to animation using paper and inking and painting in the computer, after that moving into doing animation and colour completely digitally.

Each progressive step saves hours and hours of time. Which of course means saving a lot of money.


That's why I think having the film completely animated on paper is kind of special. Many animators feel that this kind of thing is a dying artform and get jazzed when they see a whole film being made this way.




Peter T Chattaway wrote:


Not necessarily.

In the '60s, Disney began photocopying pencil sketches onto cels, rather than drawing them; this process, which resulted in a sketchier look, was initially developed to simplify the multiplication of dogs in One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961), IIRC, but you can see it in pretty much all the other films Disney produced that decade, as well -- including the original Winnie the Pooh shorts.

And then, by the '90s, Disney abandoned cels altogether and began painting the elements and putting them together in a computer. (The first film to use this process was 1989's The Little Mermaid, but only for one or two scenes; 1990's The Rescuers Down Under was the first-ever all-digital feature.)

I haven't watched the clip in question yet, so I can't say exactly what technique they used this time around, but, when I saw the new film, I did notice that the animation was a little "sketchier" this time, which would be consistent with the photocopied-cel technique. Whether that look was achieved the old-fashioned way or simulated in some way, though, I could not say. (If Winnie the Pooh truly used cels instead of computers to put the various elements together, then that WOULD be interesting.)



True enough. I kind of liked the sketchy look of the pencil sketches being photocopied onto cels. I thought it really worked well in the Sword and the Stone (if memory serves.)



I think it would be great if they still made a few painted or photocopied cels even if for the point of being collectors items.

Edited by Attica, 17 July 2011 - 12:40 AM.

[Attica]

winter shaker, on 16 July 2011 - 07:07 PM, said:

Attica, on 16 July 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

I just love that a theatrically released film from Disney was done old school. Not only is it hand drawn but it's also drawn on paper and not on drawing tablets. Tablets
are a lot faster and the drawings are easier to work with in production. Their decision to draw on paper shows respect for the artform of the older animated movies.

I love the old school animation too. I grew up watching all those old classics like The Fox And The Hound and Charlotte's Web and to now see every movie done with computer animation...the nostalgia just isn't there.

yup. There's something missing.


It's funny. I teach an animation workshop for young teens and they all seem to prefer hand drawn or stopmotion animation. Yet in the last while 3D animation almost always performs much better at the box office.

When 3-D first started to outperform 2-D animation I remember arguing that it was because the 3D Pixar films were telling better stories with better characters, and not really because of the medium itself. Now that I think
back on it I'm not completely sure if I was right, as there was also, probably, the obvious attraction of something new, to take into account.



FWIW there is actually several organizations dedicated to preserving the artform of traditional animation.


One of them being here

Edited by Attica, 17 July 2011 - 12:49 AM.

[Overstreet]

I love this movie so, so much.

[Benchwarmer]

Overstreet, on 29 August 2011 - 11:09 PM, said:

I love this movie so, so much.

[mrmando]

This movie commits the same sins and crimes against Milne's characters that are committed in previous Disney-Poohp.

It hopelessly mangles the plots of two original stories (with a few elements of a third).

No fewer than eight writers are listed in the credits. You'd think out of that number, there would be one or two who understood the source material. But you'd be wrong. Cases in point:

1. Several characters fall into a pit, with the notable exception of Piglet, to whom the other characters appeal for help. At one point, Owl flies out of the pit to encourage Piglet, then flies back to the bottom of the pit and sits back down with the other characters. Nobody, including Owl, seems to realize that if he can fly out to encourage Piglet, he could fly out to summon help.

Milne's Owl might have been thick enough to actually do something like this, but neither Milne's Rabbit nor Milne's Pooh (who isn't as thick as he thinks he is) would have sat in the pit and said nothing about it.

2. Milne's Pooh frequently gets hungry around eleven o'clock. If he happens to be at someone else's house, he might ask for food. The Pooh in this film, however, finds that he has no food at home and then spends the rest of the film running around the Hundred Acre Wood and begging all the other characters for honey. He doesn't appear to have the slightest shred of self-sufficiency.

3. In the original story, Christopher Robin misspells "Back soon" as "Backson" in a note, which leads his friends to wonder what a "Backson" might be. In the film, C.R. does not, in fact, misspell "Back soon," but his friends get confused anyway. The animals in the film are dumber than the ones in the book, and it's their stupidity, not Christopher Robin's misspelling, that drives the plot in the film's second half.

4. The Pooh in this film wears that stupid red T-shirt.

5. Part of what's intriguing about the Woozle, Wizzle, Heffalump, and Spotted or Herbaceous Backson in Milne's stories is his refusal to describe them. (Shepard did draw the Heffalump as an ordinary-looking elephant, but we can't tell from the text whether that's what it really is supposed to be.) But just as previous Disney-Poohp did with Heffalumps, this film rips the Backson from the realm of imagination and tells you exactly what it looks like.

This film concludes by bringing out a Sledgehammer with which to Pound the Moral of the Story into the little ones' Heads. Milne's stories Never Do This, which is part of what Makes Them Brilliant.

Edited by mrmando, 03 September 2011 - 01:56 AM.

[mrmando]

Peter T Chattaway, on 11 November 2010 - 06:09 PM, said:

MattPage wrote:
: This isn't for anyone who likes the books is it?

Um, I think it has to be, especially given how the trailer ends with a somewhat vintage-looking book and all.

Yes, the film ends with a vintage-looking book with Milne's name on it. Sacrilege, given that it bears only a faint resemblance to what he wrote. As Matt Rightly Suspects, it is not for anyone who Likes the Books.

Edited by mrmando, 03 September 2011 - 02:01 AM.

[SDG]

Strangely, I love the books, and I very much like Many Adventures and this new Winnie the Pooh, which, while certainly Disneyfied, honor the books better than any other Disney films honor any other source material.

Not to say, Mando, that you make no valid points, though I think you press some of them too far.

2. Where does Milne's Pooh get his honey? The only honey-getting episode I remember offhand is the rain cloud bit, and that didn't go so well.

4. The red T-shirt? You're making a thing of that? Really?

5. It's Animation. Visual medium. You're ripping two of the most outstanding sequences in Disney Pooh because they go beyond the source material? Besides, Heffalumps and Woozles are very confuzle; the visualization doesn't exactly give a clear picture of what they look like (except for suggestions of the source names of elephant and weasel). Even the Backson is portrayed suggestively rather than definitely, in (pretty inspired) sketchy chalklike animation. (Not counting the post-credits sequence, that is.)

I appreciated the lightness of Pooh's moral triumph. The giant honeypot is silly, of course, but I don't think it's the sort of sledgehammer you suggest. I don't think it's all that different from "Christopher Robin Gives Pooh a Party," say.

Edited by SDG, 03 September 2011 - 10:45 AM.

[Overstreet]

Perhaps I am contradicting my own critical standards here, but as I grew up with Disney Pooh and Milne Pooh simultaneously, the two versions, voices, and approaches are hopelessly entangled in my perception of Pooh, and one brings the associations of the other with it. And this movie brought all of that back, doing some things not so well as Milne's books, but doing some things [Michael Caine]very well indeed[/Caine]... things that only a movie could do.

[SDG]

Overstreet, on 03 September 2011 - 11:45 AM, said:

Perhaps I am contradicting my own critical standards here, but as I grew up with Disney Pooh and Milne Pooh simultaneously, the two versions, voices, and approaches are hopelessly entangled in my perception of Pooh, and one brings the associations of the other with it.

Same here. When I read Milne to my kids, I do Pooh in my best Sterling Holloway. What else would Pooh sound like?

[Overstreet]

And Jim Cummings does an incredible Sterling Holloway impression. He's not so sharp as Paul Winchell, but he tries.

[mrmando]

SDG, on 03 September 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

Same here. When I read Milne to my kids, I do Pooh in my best Sterling Holloway. What else would Pooh sound like?

We've been over this. Pooh sounds like Maurice Evans.

[SDG]

mrmando, on 03 September 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:

SDG, on 03 September 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

Same here. When I read Milne to my kids, I do Pooh in my best Sterling Holloway. What else would Pooh sound like?

We've been over this. Pooh sounds like Maurice Evans.

Not in our house.

[mrmando]

SDG, on 03 September 2011 - 07:56 AM, said:

The giant honeypot is silly, of course, but I don't think it's the sort of sledgehammer you suggest.

I wasn't suggesting that the giant honeypot is a sledgehammer. The honeypot sequence doesn't offend me; it may be one of those things that only film can do.

A "sledgehammer" is what happens when the writers write the Moral of the Story as a Line of Dialogue spoken by One Character to Another at the End of the Film, so that the Audience will be Sure to Understand It. It is when a film stops Showing and starts Telling.

My main complaint is that the characters, pretty much One and All, are Dumbed Down Unnecessarily. Milne didn't write any of them as Exceptionally Bright, so why they would need to be further robbed of whatever Intelligence and Dignity they do possess is beyond me.

SDG, on 03 September 2011 - 07:56 AM, said:

2. Where does Milne's Pooh get his honey? The only honey-getting episode I remember offhand is the rain cloud bit, and that didn't go so well.

Where he gets it is a bit of a mystery. But in the story you mention, the point is that when Pooh realizes he's out of honey, he does what he can to obtain more honey through his Own Efforts, rather than Running from Door to Door Begging for it.

Quote

4. The red T-shirt? You're making a thing of that? Really?

Herrings are red, too.

Edited by mrmando, 03 September 2011 - 01:37 PM.

[mrmando]

SDG, on 03 September 2011 - 07:56 AM, said:

Strangely, I love the books, and I very much like Many Adventures and this new Winnie the Pooh, which, while certainly Disneyfied, honor the books better than any other Disney films honor any other source material.

Those arsonists can't be all bad ... sure, they burned this house, but you can still read the number on it!

[SDG]

mrmando, on 03 September 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

Those arsonists can't be all bad ... sure, they burned this house, but you can still read the number on it!

(shrug) Somehow what you regard as a burned-out husk many other people including Jeff and I enjoy as a charming playhouse.

Switching to another reductive (but less reductive) metaphor, Epcot's World Showcase isn't the world, but a lover of the world can still appreciate in Epcot a taste of what he appreciates in the world, and not see it as an affront to the real thing. Less reductively, while Disney's Beauty and the Beast isn't an adaptation of Cocteau, it was influenced by it, and one can appreciate both and even appreciate the influence. Etc. If I kept going I might come up with a metaphor that really works, but.

Edited by SDG, 03 September 2011 - 02:12 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

SDG wrote:
: Somehow what you regard as a burned-out husk many other people including Jeff and I . . .

Jeff and *me*. Jeff and *me*. (If Jeff were out of the picture, would you say "including I"?)

Sorry, the abundance of "and I" where people really mean "and me" is one of my pet peeves. And since we're all in a nitpicky mood right now...

[Overstreet]

Yay, grammar! Is this a good time for me to bring up the difference between reign and rein again, and the reason it isn't "free reign"? No? Okay.

[mrmando]

SDG, on 03 September 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:

Switching to another reductive (but less reductive) metaphor, Epcot's World Showcase isn't the world, but a lover of the world can still appreciate in Epcot a taste of what he appreciates in the world, and not see it as an affront to the real thing.

No matter how much Jeffrey might love Epcot Center, he would never get it confused with the real world. At least I hope not.